NLC2004 /Proceedings / Symposia / Symposium 7
Frameworks for the Representation and Analysis of
Networked Learning Activity
Erica McAteer and Sally Marsden
University
of Glasgow
ABSTRACT
This symposium presentation demonstrates grounded theoretical frameworks
for the representation and analysis of networked learning activities and
outcomes within their educational context. These frameworks provide for
systematic and rigorous analysis of learning behaviours in context from a range of disciplinary perspectives for
enquiry. They also allow re-examination of study cases from new enquiry
perspectives. Two examples of the frameworks in use are provided, the first
concerns the role of gender in networked learning, the second seeks evidence
for influences of learning activity for
learning outcomes. This paper provides some theoretical background and presents
the context frame which situates
framework for the representation of interactive learning behaviours.
Keywords
activity theory, asynchronous conferencing, context, gender, learning interactions, learning outcomes
INTRODUCTION
The need for good representational frameworks to support study and
analysis of the contexts of networked
learning is critical. What is being taught, how, through which resources, to
whom and why (‘why’ from all stakeholder perspectives) is necessary knowledge
for our understanding of pedagogical impact and our development of models for
good educational practice.
Our conceptual framework for representation and analysis of patterns of
interaction within collaborative networked learning environments, drew upon a
range of cross-disciplinary research: psychological models of peer conflict,
educational models of ‘expert-novice’ scaffolding, and socio-cultural models of
community development, (McAteer et al 2002, Chappel et al 2002).
In situating learning interactions within their educational context and
marking that context in terms of
potential factors of influence, we acknowledge a debt to activity theory (AT)
as grounding the development of our context framework. Engestrom, one of the
founding fathers of AT, insists that its conceptual tools must be ‘concretised’
according to the specific study of use (Engsestrom 1987, see also Wells 2002).
Importantly:
'Considering activity theory as a special
kind of tool implies that accepting this perspective does not exclude other
approaches and does not reject the usefulness of other conceptual schemes -
because no tool, no matter how powerful it is, can serve all needs and help
solve all problems.' (Kaptelinin 1996).
A second appropriation, of Moore’s theoretical model of ‘transactional
distance’ (Moore 1986) is embedded within our context framework for the marking
of pedagogical practices within the learning community of study.
This paper briefly summarises the steps we took to reach the representation
of learning interactions in context shown in Figure 1, providing background for
the session itself. The context
framework is set out as a model, and our symposium presentation demonstrates it
through two perspectives of inquiry.
One is a study into learning development through outcome texts, over two
years of course presentation. The other is a study into the possible influence
of gender on learning activity within two different on-line courses. The main
emphasis of our presentation will be to provide findings from these studies,
using them to illustrate the use of our frameworks ‘in anger’. In this way, the presentation aims to link
the broad overview of issues provided by paper one with the study focus
detailed in paper three.
Representing learning interaction in context
Figure 1 shows elements of ‘learning interaction’ as evidenced through
study of asynchronous conference archives from episodes of group engagement in
set learning tasks (Chappel 2003), centred within a framework of context factors.
All of the outer circle nodes influence (and, with a greater or lesser
immediacy, are influenced by) the ‘stuff’ in the middle – actions and
operations toward some (not necessarily common) learning outcome. Whether we
think of this middle space as a ‘zone of proximal development’ or as some sort
of conjoint discourse depends upon the questions we are asking. Various aspects
of the surrounding context will be more, or less, a focus for study and
analysis – again, depending on the questions we are asking.
Figure 1: model for the representation and of learning
interactions within educational context
The work presented here is grounded from long-term involvement in and
commitment to ‘interactive learning’ research. There is a strong focus on
classroom communication (face to face and virtual) between learner and teacher,
between learner and peers and within learning groups, as well as ‘within
learner’ engagement with subject content and with task procedures, and the
impact of such interaction upon conceptual change.
The main thrust of our early work sought to characterise participant
activity within group learning engagements – seminars, field trips, tutorials,
discussion meetings, project collaboration, etc. across a range of learning
contexts – school, further and higher education, community education, workplace
and home learning.
Members of the SCROLLA research
team took this experience into our own e-teaching and learning domains, seeking
to represent, and study, what occurs within e-learning environmnents through
the record of interaction so far as this is visible during the collaborative
activity – in this case, the conference archive.
Drawing upon established theoretical frameworks, as indicated above, as
well as reviewing current and recent work on the coding and analysis of
conference interaction archives, we derived a set of concept labels which we
felt usefully described behaviours observed:
•
convergence, divergence (socio-cognitive
conflict)
•
framing, scaffolding, dissemination (expert
guidance)
•
facilitation, organization. (social management)
Chappel (2001) describes their application to one on-line course.
Broumley (2002) takes them to another and further field work is in progress
across a range of learning environments.
Any sensible test of the value of these generic conceptual labels for
application across a diversity of settings requires their use to be situated
and related to individual educational contexts. Nardi (1996) set the question
well: “How can we confront the blooming, buzzing confusion that is ‘context’
and still produce generalisable research results?” For a practitioner looking
to study provision with her own learning group, for reflection and development
of practice, the issue may be less acute. Implicit understanding of context
constraints and individual learner issues can inform such reflection. For a
wider community of practitioners seeking to inform that practice by research, or
for the research community itself, there is a need to identify and mark for
context factors that could critically impact on learning behaviours and,
through that, on learning outcomes.
Activity Theory
Over the past year we have explored and built from one particular
theoretical framework for our development of context representation: Activity Theory (Leont’ev, 1981, Engestrom, 1987) For reviews, development
work in progress on the AT model itself and reports of its application by
researchers from a wide range of research perspectives, Martin Ryder’s website
at the University of Denver, Colarado provides a useful portal: http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/activity.html linking to the Centre for Activity Theory
and Developmental Work Research at the University of Helsinki, where Engestrom
is based http://www.edu.helsinki.fi/activity/.
Figure 2: ‘Second generation’ Activity Theory model
represented as two intersecting triangles 
Yrjö Engeström., Learning
by Expanding, 1987 (figure within text translated from the German)
The ‘activity triangle’ representation was originally a Vygotskian model
constructed to illuminate relationships between subject and object, mediated
through tools. This evolved when Engestrom (1987) added another triangle to
represent community, rules and roles and thus represent the more complex social mediation of action, as shown in
Figure 2. Subsequent representation of activity systems has provoked some
criticism and it is important to bear in mind that ‘Although the triangle model
may seem somewhat rigid, it is only for the sake of representational simplicity
and convenience’ (Kuutti 1996).
AT has been criticised for its inability to cope with multiple
perspectives and its unidirectional portrayal of activity. It is less able to
portray reciprocal influences and effects across components, expecially
necessary when the object of study is a ‘learning dialogue’ (Wells 2002). Our
representation can perhaps more easily deal with these complexities; for
example, polymotivation of ‘subject as collective’, ie the class group, is more
easily considered when the outcome (hopefully, ‘learning’!) is situated within
the middle of the framework and thus more explicitly mediatedby many things. It
is also easier to widen out the context framework nodes for different study
foci. For example, in many learning situations there is an externally imposed
objective (assignment, product, performance) which needs to be taken into
account as well as any personal objectives of the individual subject. Our
framework is also more flexible in dealing with situations where the objective
is less concrete and unidirectional (Russell, 2002).
We have taken the ‘nodes’ from Engestrom’s 1987 model and set them in a
context framework, each for definition to as fine a level of detail as is
sensible for any instance of enquiry. Assuming a group of course participants
engaged in a set of learning activities within a on-line, distance taught,
degree course programme, Figure 3 identifies possible factors of influence for
each node; agreeing measures or setting values will be simple for some factors
but far from trivial for others.
Transactional Distance Theory
The second theoretical framework that we are bringing to bear in the
effort to characterise context in the study of on-line learning addresses pedagogical
context – the strategies, tactics, resources, options for engagement we
provide for our learners within a given situation of study.
Michael Moore’s theory of transactional distance (see Moore and
Kearsley 1996 ch. 10 for an overview) offers a useful framework for
understanding, which might also support prediction. Broadly, this relates to
three aspects of the learning environment:
•
Dialogue between teacher and learner, between learners and learners,
and the extent which this is resourced and supported in a given learning
community:
•
What
opportunities are there for dialogue within and around coursework?
•
For initiating dialogue?
•
For receiving response?
•
Who can engage in dialogue with whom and how easily?
•
Dialogue opportunities in terms of feedback on actions
•
Structure
- the extent to which the learner is guided, prompted, ‘programmed’
toward the learning goal, the degree to which paths to understanding are
prescribed and learning tasks ordered. What elements of the course provide
structure? Eg:
•
Aims/
objectives
•
Study guide and assignment guidelines
•
Assessment task requirements and marking criteria
•
Pacing/deadline management -is this by means of
prescription, frameworks, suggestion, example, rhetoric…
•
Autonomy – this aspect
interdependent upon the others – the extent to which the participant is free to
take responsibility for his or her own learning. How autonomous are
participants in terms of:
•
Their objectives/goals?
•
Their study
strategies and choice of tools and resources?
•
Assessment and evaluation?
Figure 3: Nodes within interactional learning context
framework, with potential factors of influence
|
Subject |
Gender Age Socio-cultural background
(course language alignment) Educational
background/qualifications Professional background/current
workplace Experience with ICTs for
knowledge working/leisure/learning Resource access status (eg own
equipment, broadband…) Motivation for doing course Level of other commitments Availability for this activity |
|
Tools |
Web-based learning environments Web-based learning materials Communication tools
(conferences, email, phone, post…) Metacognitive tools Collaborative learning tools Assessment tools Other resources offered by the
course, including frameworks and models. Resources brought in by
participants, including frameworks and models. |
|
Objectives |
(a) The group as a subject has
an objective for the activity under study - eg “produce a support plan for a
learning context” (b) Within the participant
group there will be individual objectives which may, or may not, conflict
with the assigned objective. Eg: –
To gain experience
in working collaboratively on line –
To work gain
material/ideas for the subsequent assignment. –
To maintain
contact with the group –
To fulfil
course requirements (assessed) –
Not to
contribute in order to spend time on other things |
|
Community – as
people |
Learners Teachers and trainers Support staff Subject experts
(visiting/available) A point here that, particularly in workplace learning situations, ‘the
community’ extends to key people around individual subjects… |
|
Community – as
practice |
(Transactional distance
as a framework for representation/analysis) Pedagogies: didactic,
interactive, ‘discovery’, ‘cooperative’; assessment procedures Opportunities for dialogue
(one-to-one, one-to-many, many-to-many) Imposition of structure (open
versus closed paths to task process and achievement) Autonomy – degree to which the
learner has control/responsibility |
|
Rules |
The Institute Educational system/climate Socio-Cultural
system/climate Workplace community..? |
|
Roles |
Either the formal roles of the
community members such as tutor, course chair, student, guest expert….. Or allocation of activity to
actor, eg ‘researcher’, ‘scribe’, chair…..
or role of actor within task – eg tutor-as-facilitator,
tutor-as-assessor, tutor-as-peer….
Student taking moderator role…. Deliberate roles – ie by
allocation or voluntary selection…. Manifest roles, ie emergent within activity |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank the Institute of Educational Technolocy at the UK Open
University, whose tutors and students participated in our exploratory studies;
colleagues across the EQUEL network, particularly within SIG2, who critiqued
the work in process, and members of the SCROLLA community, who aspects of our
work forward in their own research and practice contexts. SCROLLA was initially funded by the Scottish
Higher Education Funding Council’s Strategic Research Development Initiative,
from March 2001 to July 2004.
REFERENCES
Broumley L (2002) 'Learning to
Learn from Online Dialogue: Are we building Cairns or Dry Stane Dykes?'
Improving Student Learning Conference, Brussel Sept 2002 http://www.learn.uhi.ac.uk/staff/lbroumley.htm
accessed 04.02.04
Chappel, H., McAteer, E., Harris, R.A., & Marsden, S.
(2002) Fast Coding of On-Line Learning Behaviours using an ‘Elements’ Approach.
Proceedings of Networked Learning 2002, University of Sheffield, UK
Engestrom, Y. (1987) Learning by expanding: An
activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki,
Orienta-Konsultit. Also
http://communication.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/Engestrom/expanding/toc.htm
Kaptelinin, V. (1996). Computer-Mediated Activity:
Functional Organs in Social and Development Contexts. Context and
Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction. ed B. A. Nardi.
Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press: 45-68.
Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity Theory as a Potential Framework
for Human-Computer Interaction Research. Context and Consciousness: Activity
Theory and Human-Computer Interaction. B. A. Nardi. Cambridge, MA, The MIT
Press: 17-44.
Leont’ev, A. N. (1981) Problems of the development of mind.
Moscow: Progress Publishers.
McAteer, E., Tolmie, A., Harris, R.A.Chappel, H., Marsden,
S. & Lally, V. (2002) Characterising On-Line Learning Environments.
Proceedings of Networked Learning 2002, University of Sheffield, UK
Moore, M. (1986) Self-directed learning and distance
education. Journal of Distance Education, 1 (1) 7-24
Moore, M. and Kearsley, G. (1996) Distance Education: a
systems view. Thomson: Wadsworth Publishing. Ch. 10
Nardi, B. (1996). Studying Context:A Comparison of Activity
Theory, Situated Action Models and Distributed Cognition. Context and
Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction. B. A. Nardi.
Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press: 69-102.
Piaget, J. (1932). The Moral Development of the Child.
London, Routledge & Keegan Paul.
Russell, D. (2002) Looking beyond the interface: activity
theory and distributed learning. In Lea, M. and Nicoll, K. (eds) Distributed
Learning: social and cultural approaches to practice.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of
Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge,MA, Harvard University Press.
Wells, G. (2002). "The Role of Dialogue in Activity
Theory." Mind, Culture and Activity 9(1): 43-66.